Archives for category: Psychology

(Reuters) – A western Massachuetts toddler died over the weekend after suffocating while undergoing a home treatment for head lice involving mayonnaise and a plastic bag, police said on Thursday.

OK, one thing at a time.

– Lice. Pestiferous insects that can carry dangerous diseases – typhus among others – usually associated with deficient personal hygiene but also with low standards of living/economic hardships. Last huge outbreak of typhus took place during WWI in Eastern Europe where both conditions for lice infections were met simultaneously. Deaths were numbered in millions, one of my great-grand fathers among them.
– Mayonnaise. Delicious – if well prepared – sauce comprising egg yolk and vegetable oil. Or various presumably edible chemicals, if bought in a jar. Some, as in this example, try to use it as treatment for lice.
Supposedly the fats that make up most of the ‘regular’ mayo will “suffocate” adult lice and the nymphs while the eggs will ‘survive’ the treatment. A second operation, involving vinegar, will be necessary to finish the business.
Anyway here is the ‘disclaimer’ that can be found on one of the sites that ‘promote’ this kind of ‘treatment’: “There are no scientific studies that prove the effectiveness of mayonnaise as a treatment for head lice, but there are many parents who have been using it for years and are very satisfied with the effectiveness of this home remedy against adult head lice.”

NB. This particular site actually warns that the mayo treatment is not suitable for children – who might try to eat some of it out of their hair. They also warn against covering children’s heads with plastic wraps after applying the mayo. These two warnings practically ban the use of this treatment whenever children are involved, right?

– Plastic Bag. Useful industrial product. So versatile that has become almost ubiquitous and so resistant that has become a rallying point for the environmentally minded people: they try to ban it because it ‘clogs’ the waste management systems. It also has been known to having produced accidental deaths, specially among children, by suffocation.

– Death. An otherwise normal occurrence for all living organisms.
It can also be induced intentionally – as in suicide/murder/self defense, hunting/culling or butchering/harvesting, unintentionally – when negligence/callousness is involved, or even against the will of the ‘perpetrator’ – by his own failure to take into consideration obvious aspects of the reality because of temporary ‘blindness’ induced by ‘ideological lenses’.

What has ‘ideology’ to do with anything?

People tend to forget that the concept of ideology has at least two sides and concentrate on the practical one. Most of us see ‘ideology’ as a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation and forget about the ‘beacon’ role it plays to our minds: ideology understood as the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group”.

Why on Earth would somebody subject an 18-months old child to an “unproven” treatment involving mayonnaise and vinegar for a condition that can be cured simply and effectively with FDA approved ‘chemicals’?
Two situations come to my mind: ‘regular’ treatment was applied, several times, and failed or the person resorting to the ‘mayo treatment’ is convinced that ‘FDA is a bunch of liars’.

In both cases that person did a poor job as a researcher. “And if you prefer mayonnaise with French fries and really don’t feel like putting it on your children’s heads, you can instead use an olive oil treatment, this will also be very effective.”

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611812/typhus
http://headlicecenter.com/head-lice-mayonnaise/
http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/treatment.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/head_lice/page5.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ideology

“- Can we talk to you?
– We talked, now it’s time for each of you to listen to your own hearts.”

Misterious Ways, Pure of Heart: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0655359/?ref_=ttep_ep3

Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit another salt mine, an active one this time,

My mother worked in the mining industry, my father in law was a miner almost all his life, my first job was in a factory building mining equipment, I went down another half a dozen mines before, both active and transformed into touristic attractions. I thought I had a fair imagine about what it means to be a miner.

In the mine I visited yesterday there was a small church, entirely carved in salt of course. On one of its walls the visitors can read:

“Afara-s doar chinuri si nevoi,
Aici, in mina-i Dumnezeu cu noi.”

(Out there, topside, nothing but trouble comes in sight.
Down here, deep into the mine, we have the Lord on our side.)

How deep into our souls do we need to dig in order to find our good nature?

And then I found this picture on Facebook:

Most people tend to be passionate about what they do, parents in particular.
This is absolutely normal, what could be more important than ‘the future of mankind’?

And the more passionate we are about something, the more we want to reach the best results in what we do, right?

Only sometimes we are so busy trying to demonstrate that our best is the best there is that we neglect some of the basic aspects of the day to day reality.
The most neglected one being that very seldom ‘one size fits all’.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-routly/where-similac-and-the-mother-hood-go-wrong-and-why-it-matters_b_6536280.html

Interesting .
Cannot stop wondering how is it to belong to a people/tribe and reach the conclusion that the members of another people/tribe are more trustworthy than your own ‘mates’?!?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/27/greek-election-reflects-countrys-differences-with-the-eu/

More than five years ago a friend introduced me to the work of Humberto Maturana.
I was instantly hooked.
Only I’m not that interested in how consciousness appeared to be as I am in the consequences of us being conscient.

“The argument unfolds as follows: physicists have no problem accepting that certain fundamental aspects of reality – such as space, mass, or electrical charge – just do exist. They can’t be explained as being the result of anything else. Explanations have to stop somewhere. The panpsychist hunch is that consciousness could be like that, too – and that if it is, there is no particular reason to assume that it only occurs in certain kinds of matter.”

This excerpt perfect illustrates what I have in mind.

First thing after becoming conscious – ‘aware of his own awareness’ in Maturana’s terms – man realized how fragile he is.  The best way to assuage that feeling was to find an explanation and a purpose for the whole situation. That’s when our immortal soul came to be. Created by God or simply invented by us, it doesn’t make any practical difference.
In time, as rational knowledge constructed wider and wider inroads into the unknown and currently offers scientific explanations for almost everything, the Creator God became less and less necessary. But ‘soul’ survived and now accompanies our still smart and yet unfulfilled desire to understand the origin of our consciousness. And now that we are no longer satisfied with the ‘divine origin’ of anything but not yet ready to accept that we might indeed be something special – fright again, being special implies extreme fragility/responsibility for one’s own fate – we are constantly searching for a new way to connect our nature/fate to the rest of the known Universe.

Hence the advent of ‘panpsyhism’. Which is not such a new idea as it would seem at first glance. The Buddhist notion of successive reincarnation has been around for more than two millennia.

How about accepting what Maturana teaches us – that consciousness of self is something we have continuously improved by using it synergistically with language and all these could take place simply because of the increased processing power that was accidentally bestowed, evolutionary speaking, upon our brains – and move on? If a better explanation will ever dawn upon us – by feat, by chance or even by divine intervention – we can always come back and reconsider – this is how science works, right?
Remaining stuck in this so called ‘Hard Problem’ – what is the direct link between our anatomy/brain physiology and our thoughts? – won’t take us anywhere, for sure.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/21/-sp-why-cant-worlds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/hvf/papers/maturana05selfconsciousness.html

Vaccines work.
OK, there are exceptions. Some batches are botched, some people develop allergies, some viruses mutate so fast that in those cases vaccination isn’t very effective.
But as a principle vaccination works as intended.

Despite all that, some people choose to deny their children the protection offered by vaccines, without any specific reason – such as an allergy or something similar. Just because they have heard that vaccination may cause autism. Or other equivalent baloney. Against advice vehemently pressed by most doctors.

As a consequence, people have re-started to die. After contracting perfectly preventable diseases.

vaccination

I have a rather ambivalent attitude towards Ayn Rand. I admire her razor sharp mind yet I find her a little too callous for my liking.

But sometimes it’s exactly this combination of traits that helps her pin point the essence of a situation:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-new-measles/384738/

Cheadle slaves

Click on the picture to read the article.

Don Cheadle learns that his ancestors were owned as slaves by the Chickasaw Nation and that after the end of the Civil War the five ‘Civilized Nations’ refused to liberate their slaves. Further more, after the Chickasaw agreed to liberate their slaves they didn’t offer them citizenship.

It seems that the ancient Romans were right when they said that ‘homo homini lupus’ – men act like wolves do towards other people.

Only his can be interpreted in two apparently conflicting ways:
‘Man predates on other people’
or
‘Man helps his mates, just as wolves do’.

In reality both interpretations are valid simultaneously.
Men coagulate into packs, just like wolves do, and then go prey on other human packs, called ‘herds’ by the ‘hunters’. Somewhat similar to what wolves do, only that wolves do not prey on members of their own species.

And something else. Wolves do this mostly by instinct and on a ‘need to do’ basis. We do it knowingly and because we feel there’s something wrong in there we have to find ‘excuses’ for our acts. Some of us almost never fail to come up with new ones.
‘Ideology’ being just one of the many currently available.

Or we may choose to act the better side of ourselves.

we-carry-kevan-2

http://wecarrykevan.com/

.Other quite interesting ideas on this subject can be found here:
http://associatesmind.com/2013/05/09/homo-homini-lupus-est-man-is-a-wolf-to-his-fellow-man/

Yesterday I went to the French embassy in Bucharest and lighted a candle in mourning for the people killed during the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.

I, an agnostic, using a religious symbol in remembrance of a group of people killed by a couple of (intolerant self proclaimed) defenders of religious values for poking tasteless fun at some religious symbols.

Je suis Charlie

While there I noticed a mother who brought her very small child to a ‘shrine’ build in the memory of people who authored such extreme works of art that some of them cannot be shown, under any circumstances, to underage audiences.
(I really do consider that what those people created were indeed works of art. Only not all art is contemporary with the moment of time when it was created so, maybe, it should be saved for ulterior audience… and, hence, shown to a very limited selection of the people currently roaming the Earth.)

Mai multi prieteni de pe FB au ‘shared’ un status postat de Dan Alexe despre atentatul oribil savarsit aseara la Paris asupra redactiei Charlie Hebdo. Le inteleg si impartasesc oroarea. Numai ca e ceva aici care ‘ma roade la radacina’.
Respectul fata de ce?
Am auzit parerea ca asasinatele oribile de ieri au reprezentat un atac la libertatea presei. Pot fi interpretate si asa.
Revin la ‘respect’ si ma intreb cum vine asta? “Trebuie sa respectam ‘libertatea presei/de opinie’ si in acelasi timp trebuie – la fel de absolut – sa ne batem joc de ‘religie/dogma’? Nu cumva insusi ‘trebuie’ asta ne plaseaza in tabara intolerantilor? De orice fel?
N-ar fi mai bine sa ne respectam intre noi, ca persoane, in loc sa cautam tot felul de ‘valori’ de la care sa ne cautam apoi validarea?
E intr-adevar o diferenta fundamentala intre credinta in ‘libertatea presei’ si credinta in ‘Dumnezeu’ – asa cum este (ne) inteleasa acum de catre foarte multi dintre noi.
‘Libertatea presei’ functioneaza intr-adevar mult mai bine, in conditiile din lumea ‘vestica’, decat ‘Dumnezeu’.
Numai ca asta se intampla doar in anumite conditii si doar pentru ca ‘Dumnezeu’ a ‘murit’ (cel putin in sufletele noastre). In alte conditii si in sufletele celor care nu l-au omorat inca pe ‘Dumnezeu’ genul asta de ‘libertate a presei’ – si mai ales atunci cand aceasta este utilizata provocator – pare, pentru ei, o aberatie care trebuie ‘stearsa’ de pe fata pamantului.
A respecta diversitatea nu justifica cu nimic asasinatele de ieri si de astazi dupa cum nici a cauta explicatii despre cum a ajuns sa fie comis un fapt abominabil nu inseamna a-l scuza. In acelasi timp a impune altora, folosind orice fel de forta, un anumit comportament, indiferent care este acela, este o dovada de totalitarism/intoleranta.
De fapt, esenta libertatii presei consta in aceea ca nici o persoana nu trebuie sa fie ‘pedepsita’ (de nimeni, nu doar de catre stat!!!) pentru simplul fapt de a-si exprima parerile. N-are nimic cu ‘obligatia’ cuiva, si cu atat mai putin a presei, de a face misto de parerile, opiniile si nici chiar de credintele altcuiva. Si mai consta in obligatia statului de a pedepsi pe oricine atenteaza, in orice maniera, la aceasta forma de libertate.
Adica la obligatia reprezentatilor statului de a pedepsi pe oricine incearca sa impuna celorlalti, in orice fel, o anumita parere sau un anumit mod de comportament. Si asta tocmai pentru ca populatiile moderne au invatat sa respecte diversitatea, inclusiv in ceea ce priveste opiniile, si impun respectul diversitatii cu ajutorul statului care le reprezinta.
‘Avem nevoie de POSIBILITATEA de a rade, in siguranta, de orice, inclusiv de religie si de Dumnezeu!’.
Asta parca suna altfel, nu? Dar tot nu justifica actiunea in sine. Dupa cum simplul fapt ca putem, fizic, lua jucariile unui copil nu justifica, cu nimic, gestul.
La fel cum simpla posesie a armelor si abilitatea de a le folosi nu justifica cu nimic oroarea comisa de cei trei la redactia Charlie Hebdo. Indiferent de cat de jigniti s-au simtit de materialele aparute in acea revista.
Respectul persoanei celuilalt, despre care vorbeam mai sus, este singurul punct de plecare care nu trebuie sa fie validat de vreo valoare superioara si ca atare ar putea fi acceptabil tuturor, indiferent de convingerile fiecaruia. Religioase sau de alta natura. Iar de la respectul reciproc la ‘primum non nocere’, “in primul rand sa nu faci rau”, si astfel la adevarata libertate – aceea pe care ne-o aflam impreuna cu toti cei aflati in jurul nostru si nu impotriva tuturor acestora – mai este doar un singur pas.